Gross National Happiness

May 22, 2010 by janet · Leave a Comment 

“Forget GDP, we should be measuring GNH – gross national happiness”.  That’s what John Raulson Saul said in his moneySydney Writers’ Festival talk on Thursday night (actually, he was just repeating what a Sultan had said – I can’t remember which one).

It’s really a question of money vs. happiness that seems to be a theme repeated at this year’s Writers’ Festival. Mike Daisey (The Last Cargo Cult) challenges our relationship to money by handing it to the audience as they enter the theatre – his money – the stuff that he was paid to perform the show. After 2 hours of amazing story-telling, the audience has the option to give it back.

So, after all the years giving lip service to the line ‘money doesn’t buy happiness’, these authors and philosophers seem to be saying ‘no really, it’s not a throw-away line…we are serious…what does it really mean?’   But it’s not just a concept for individuals, it’s being asked on a global scale.

Saul says that capitalism is only a valid concept for economies NOT in surplus. Once we have everything we need, more doesn’t get us anywhere.  So, measuring ‘more’ in terms of ‘product’ is the wrong measure. What to measure instead?  How about happiness and satisfaction?

complexityIt’s his example of how to start thinking spatially, not linearly. He says we should blow up all of the University Philosophy departments (get the people out first, ‘cause we still need them) – but blow them up into little pieces and catch them as they land. Then, put the pieces together in a new way.

To learn about this new way, we should turn to our indigenous populations and learn the ways of their dreamtime stories – they can teach us much more about philosophy in the way we need it today – spatially…not in the silly linear way taught by western philosophies of the Greeks and Romans.

So, what does Mr. Saul have against philosophers? (actually, his thinking extends to economics and business departments, too, as well as economic journalists and consultants – ouch). Well, he just doesn’t think we have evolved much since our 19th and 20th century thinking. We haven’t stopped to challenge ourselves – it’s been too long since we had a revolution of ideas. Or, said another way, we can’t solve our problems with the same thinking we used to create them (problems being GFC and environment to name a few). Our problems are complex, and linear models just don’t cut it when trying to solve complex problems.

Do you agree? I do. As (an evil) consultant working in organisations, I see it all the time. Organisations don’t solve their own problems very well because the tools and models we have given them in business schools don’t match the complexity that is their reality. One thinker on organisation change (Kaufmann) puts it like this: linear thinking might help you get to the top of your current mountain, but if you need to climb a new mountain, you will need to change your ways – going sideways or even down before you go up again. You’ve got to be willing to put your models at risk and re-think the problem in a whole new way.

If we aren’t challenging ourselves the think in complex ways, we won’t be able to solve complex problems.

Filed under: Change
Tagged: